Hi Vincent,
> The policy says "may not". I am not a native speaker, but for me, this
> is not like "must not". Since you are a native speaker, I think you know
> better: is it optional or not?
May I suggest an alternative approach…? We have two cases here:
a) Debian Policy states it is a bug in python-asyncssh.
b) Debian Policy does not state it is a bug python-asyncssh.
In both cases it would be perfectly legitimate to continue discussing
whether it *should* be a bug in python-asyncssh.
In other words, tedious haggling over the wording and intention of a
document neither of us wrote is unproductive to the goal of improving
Debian. So, let's just skip all of that.
> People which are really concerned about information leak during
> build should do the same.
I disagree, when we can easily enforce it for all of our users.
> Of course, another solution would be to use 127.0.0.1:discard which
> would be almost equivalent since the goal of the test seems to be
> broader than just DNS failures.
I recommend you disable the test for the "regular" Debian package build
and run as many privacy-leaking/slow/etc. tests using autopkgtest.
Regards,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
`-
